Really? Bush, the Prez has unlimited power during wartime guy? Guess what, by their own definition we're in wartime so he's quite clearly allowed to do whatever the hell he wants. - his and his lawyers impression anyway.
You can't claim you can violate the Constitution 'just because' and then claim it prevented you from intervening.
From a self professed left wing liberal, I wholeheartedly agree. Why not put something back in place that quite clearly worked well.
Sadly it probably stems from the ego's on both sides, nobody would support simply saying "they were right" instead of putting their brand spanking new plan they wrote themselves* in place.
* for various definitions of self - lobbyist, inside influence, staffer, etc...
BR
sigh
A significant point is that most of the 'damage' was done during GOP controlled Congresses. Yes Clinton was there for some of it, but Bush took massive advantage of a lapdog Congress. So yes, Bush is much more responsible. We still haven't seen all of the ramifications of the last 8 years.
Indeed you did, but it still doesn't matter. Apple is the '400lb gorilla' of app sales on their 'own' system. That's still not monopolistic. Palm could have been just as monopolistic in it's day. In terms of the sheer number of applications available for a smartphone platform? I'd think Palm might even still have the largest share.
iTunes is no different. They have a pretty large share of the legal music download market. But they can't be a monopoly because plenty of competition exists and more importantly because Apple doesn't control the market space. They can be the majority player but nothing they do can prevent someone else from having a fair shot at competing with them.
even if you include iPods there still isn't a monopoly...a sizeable 'majority' perhaps, but that isn't a monopoly.
If Apple controlled what songs could be played on 'any' MP3 player, then yes it would be similar to MS and Windows.
But there are 10s if not 100s of perfectly capable other MP3 players currently in the marketplace. Yes most people seem to prefer iPods, but just like if everybody prefered Levi bluejeans doesn't make them a 'monopoly' player. Plenty of other equivalent products exist with no barrier to entry/use in the marketplace.
Windows is a barrier to entry because 90 odd percent of the worlds computers use it. Software for Windows doesn't work on other OSes (obviously emulation can work but that's a different issue). MS combined IE with Windows to leverage the Windows monopoly against Netscape. *That* was the illegal behavior. (the 'troll' mod not withstanding...lol)
no it's specifically not the point, in fact it reinforces my point rather than the people arguing against me.
This part of the thread is about whether Apple has a MONOPOLY. Classifying the iPhone/iPad as a 'modern' computer only further solidifies the argument that Apple does *not* have a monopoly here. Since MS has the defacto monopoly on modern computers in terms of market share, Apple certainly can't have a monopoly there. If they don't have a monopoly then they are free to do whatever they want with their product - including banning Flash.
This in no way diminishes the ridiculousness of comparing the iPhone to a desktop computer/laptop.
well last time I checked, holding a 15 year old computer up to your ear was a tad uncomfortable.
I also can upgrade a 15 year old computer pretty easily. Try that with a cell phone.
15 year old computers don't tend to be 'mobile' and allow you to place and receive phone calls. It's a mobile phone first and foremost. That it also is a modern computer is completely beside the point.
Nokia is the market leader in mobile phones I believe. Apple is *only* on ATT in the US, and isn't even the largest carrier here. Even then, plenty of other phones are available for that network.
If Apple was offering a competing proprietary product to play Flash media, I could (possibly) see an anti-trust case.... This isn't really the same thing as Netscape vs. Microsoft.
Even if they were it wouldn't be the same thing as MS vs Netscape. MS is the 900 lb gorilla of personal computing. Apple is a a small fish that happens to garner way way way outsized media attention for their market share.
If a small company that in no way has a monopoly on its industry wants to offer a closed system they are perfectly within their rights to do so.
The MS vs Netscape problem wasn't that MS incorporated IE, it was that it used the virtual monopoly of Windows to do so.
likewise you can't lump the fact that it may be encrypted on the helo with the fact that prior to that encryption being done it very likely was broadcast unencrypted for use by other military units.
You're assuming the only use of the Drone video would be for it's operator. It was specifically designed to be down-linked to ground troops and they weren't given receivers that could decrypt. The same system was designed to *also* provide plane/helo video and for the same reason that link was unencrypted.
I can encrypt my recording, but if the signal was split prior to that recording, there's still an unencrypted signal out there to be received and used.
and another article pointing out that just about all the video is broadcast unencrypted. For the reasons I said, the ground troops equipment can't decode the encrypted signals.
or it was a flaw they new about over a decade ago.
Perhaps the helo did internal encryption, but just as likely the video was also being broadcast prior to that encryption for the reasons you say and I pointed out. Getting everything upgraded in real time is hard not too mention the computing horsepower of doing it on remote small systems.
It's not experimental tech. The drones are live and working right now.
The point is that the video (not this case but generally) is relayed up and down from drones to support units to troops on the ground and unless every node can handle the encryption, no encryption is the only way to guarantee universal access.
I believe the decision was made because getting new hardware out to every unit in the field was simply a non-starter of an option. It's hard enough to upgrade a corporate wide environment - now put the nodes in remote inaccessible locations under hostile conditions and that really gets tricky. Imagine the uproar if a unit hadn't yet received new gear, they were ambushed because the helo overhead couldn't show them where the enemy was coming from?
That makes no sense. What if your lunch is in your personal bag, and your personal bag is in the company fridge?
Case in point, it's in the company fridge so it's fair game. What it is inside is irregardless at that point. Your personal bag is your personal property, not like the fridge. You have no expectation of privacy in a communal refrigerator, period.
What if you are explicitly allowed to use the company laptop and network for personal use during breaks provided within an acceptable use policy framework?
You may be 'allowed' to do many things, however that doesn't forfeit the company's right to do what they wish with *their* property. If you have a signed legal agreement that will certainly be a mitigating factor, but that is not the case here I don't believe.
And is this a two way street? If I take the company backups to an offsite location via my personal car, am I now entitled to go through all the contents and make copies for myself? After all, they are using something of mine to transmit the data.
If you are taking backups offsite, I'm quite sure you have signed non-disclosure agreements rendering your 'rights' less useful. Likewise, that would be in execution of your corporate duties which is not the case when you are reading personal email on a company computer. If your company was using your internet connection to route traffic, then barring agreements to the contrary, yes you can snoop on that traffic moving back and forth. It's *your* network.
Or more simply, if your neighbor uses your wifi connection, he has no expectation of privacy even if you granted him permission to do it.
"An important exception is made for personal calls. Under federal case law, when an employer realizes the call is personal, he or she must immediately stop monitoring the call. (Watkins v. L.M. Berry & Co., 704 F.2d 577, 583 (11th Cir. 1983)) However, when employees are told not to make personal calls from specified business phones, the employee then takes the risk that calls on those phones may be monitored."
So if they tell you not to do it, they can monitor if you make calls. Decidedly a gray area me thinks which means, yes they can.
The Post Office's JOB is to transport your mail. So no they don't have a right to open and read it. Besides the Constitution and laws specifically exist to prohibit this; no such law exists for doing things with a private companies assets.
Your employer is not tasked with sending/delivering your electronic mail. Therefore anything going over their *private* network is indeed fair game for them. They do not have a right to access her yahoo mail account itself, but certainly they can intercept and read anything traveling over their network to and from that yahoo email account.
If my lunch is in my company's fridge, they can access it. If it is in my personal bag, they cannot unless they have some sort of policy allowing for blatant search and seizure; i.e. default is for personal privacy. But using the company resources opens up their right to see what you are doing.
If you access yahoo email via your personal laptop over your personal wi-fi connection (not over company network) then no they can't see it because you aren't using anything of theirs. Extreme cases of argument could involve whether the laptop was plugged in using company electricity, but obviously that's extreme as I said.
Slashdot Mirror
Once you fill one up with crap, you wrap it up, toss it away, and get a nice clean one.
;-)
I think you switched the definitions of 'machine' and 'diaper'
Seriously though, I don't see anything about these machines that looks disposable...got a link?
Well it is an episode of Dirty Jobs just waiting to be filmed.
I don't want to imagine the 'maintenance' involved when this thing needs servicing.
Really? Bush, the Prez has unlimited power during wartime guy? Guess what, by their own definition we're in wartime so he's quite clearly allowed to do whatever the hell he wants. - his and his lawyers impression anyway.
You can't claim you can violate the Constitution 'just because' and then claim it prevented you from intervening.
From a self professed left wing liberal, I wholeheartedly agree. Why not put something back in place that quite clearly worked well.
Sadly it probably stems from the ego's on both sides, nobody would support simply saying "they were right" instead of putting their brand spanking new plan they wrote themselves* in place.
* for various definitions of self - lobbyist, inside influence, staffer, etc...
BR sigh
A significant point is that most of the 'damage' was done during GOP controlled Congresses. Yes Clinton was there for some of it, but Bush took massive advantage of a lapdog Congress. So yes, Bush is much more responsible. We still haven't seen all of the ramifications of the last 8 years.
Indeed you did, but it still doesn't matter. Apple is the '400lb gorilla' of app sales on their 'own' system. That's still not monopolistic. Palm could have been just as monopolistic in it's day. In terms of the sheer number of applications available for a smartphone platform? I'd think Palm might even still have the largest share.
iTunes is no different. They have a pretty large share of the legal music download market. But they can't be a monopoly because plenty of competition exists and more importantly because Apple doesn't control the market space. They can be the majority player but nothing they do can prevent someone else from having a fair shot at competing with them.
even if you include iPods there still isn't a monopoly...a sizeable 'majority' perhaps, but that isn't a monopoly.
If Apple controlled what songs could be played on 'any' MP3 player, then yes it would be similar to MS and Windows.
But there are 10s if not 100s of perfectly capable other MP3 players currently in the marketplace. Yes most people seem to prefer iPods, but just like if everybody prefered Levi bluejeans doesn't make them a 'monopoly' player. Plenty of other equivalent products exist with no barrier to entry/use in the marketplace.
Windows is a barrier to entry because 90 odd percent of the worlds computers use it. Software for Windows doesn't work on other OSes (obviously emulation can work but that's a different issue). MS combined IE with Windows to leverage the Windows monopoly against Netscape. *That* was the illegal behavior. (the 'troll' mod not withstanding...lol)
no it's specifically not the point, in fact it reinforces my point rather than the people arguing against me.
This part of the thread is about whether Apple has a MONOPOLY. Classifying the iPhone/iPad as a 'modern' computer only further solidifies the argument that Apple does *not* have a monopoly here. Since MS has the defacto monopoly on modern computers in terms of market share, Apple certainly can't have a monopoly there. If they don't have a monopoly then they are free to do whatever they want with their product - including banning Flash.
This in no way diminishes the ridiculousness of comparing the iPhone to a desktop computer/laptop.
Who said it wasn't a computer? MS has a defacto monopoly on desktop computing.
Apple has about 25% marketshare for the mobile smartphone market. Hardly comparable.
well last time I checked, holding a 15 year old computer up to your ear was a tad uncomfortable. I also can upgrade a 15 year old computer pretty easily. Try that with a cell phone.
15 year old computers don't tend to be 'mobile' and allow you to place and receive phone calls. It's a mobile phone first and foremost. That it also is a modern computer is completely beside the point.
As I said, Apple has *far* more clout than its marketshare would dictate.
That still doesn't mean they are a monopoly in the mobile phone industry.
linky
25% market share. RIM is the leader with 40%. Google/Android, gained 6% share in just a year while Apple stayed pretty much flat.
As I said, Apple gets *way* more press than they deserve in terms of market share.
Actually apple IS the 400kg gorilla of the smartphone market
Sorry, but no. Linky
25% market share is *not* a 400lb gorilla.
Nokia is the market leader in mobile phones I believe. Apple is *only* on ATT in the US, and isn't even the largest carrier here. Even then, plenty of other phones are available for that network.
What monopoly do they hold again?
If Apple was offering a competing proprietary product to play Flash media, I could (possibly) see an anti-trust case. ... This isn't really the same thing as Netscape vs. Microsoft.
Even if they were it wouldn't be the same thing as MS vs Netscape. MS is the 900 lb gorilla of personal computing. Apple is a a small fish that happens to garner way way way outsized media attention for their market share.
If a small company that in no way has a monopoly on its industry wants to offer a closed system they are perfectly within their rights to do so.
The MS vs Netscape problem wasn't that MS incorporated IE, it was that it used the virtual monopoly of Windows to do so.
likewise you can't lump the fact that it may be encrypted on the helo with the fact that prior to that encryption being done it very likely was broadcast unencrypted for use by other military units.
You're assuming the only use of the Drone video would be for it's operator. It was specifically designed to be down-linked to ground troops and they weren't given receivers that could decrypt. The same system was designed to *also* provide plane/helo video and for the same reason that link was unencrypted.
I can encrypt my recording, but if the signal was split prior to that recording, there's still an unencrypted signal out there to be received and used.
and another article pointing out that just about all the video is broadcast unencrypted. For the reasons I said, the ground troops equipment can't decode the encrypted signals.
or it was a flaw they new about over a decade ago.
Perhaps the helo did internal encryption, but just as likely the video was also being broadcast prior to that encryption for the reasons you say and I pointed out. Getting everything upgraded in real time is hard not too mention the computing horsepower of doing it on remote small systems.
It's not experimental tech. The drones are live and working right now.
The point is that the video (not this case but generally) is relayed up and down from drones to support units to troops on the ground and unless every node can handle the encryption, no encryption is the only way to guarantee universal access.
I believe the decision was made because getting new hardware out to every unit in the field was simply a non-starter of an option. It's hard enough to upgrade a corporate wide environment - now put the nodes in remote inaccessible locations under hostile conditions and that really gets tricky. Imagine the uproar if a unit hadn't yet received new gear, they were ambushed because the helo overhead couldn't show them where the enemy was coming from?
exactly.
It was in December when we learned that much of US Military video is actually not encrypted at all.
Agreed. However, I don't know anyone who would want to be a Patent Examiner. Can you imagine having to understand *everything* new coming out?
Sure there are specialization areas, but how many people do you think it would take to adequately cover everything anyone invents?
linky
Now ask yourself is this enough people?
At end of FY 2009
Employees - 9,716
Patent examiners - 6,242
Trademark examining attorneys - 388
from TFSummary: "Stengart, then the executive director of nursing, "
This isn't an average small business we're talking about.
That makes no sense. What if your lunch is in your personal bag, and your personal bag is in the company fridge?
Case in point, it's in the company fridge so it's fair game. What it is inside is irregardless at that point. Your personal bag is your personal property, not like the fridge. You have no expectation of privacy in a communal refrigerator, period.
What if you are explicitly allowed to use the company laptop and network for personal use during breaks provided within an acceptable use policy framework?
You may be 'allowed' to do many things, however that doesn't forfeit the company's right to do what they wish with *their* property. If you have a signed legal agreement that will certainly be a mitigating factor, but that is not the case here I don't believe.
And is this a two way street? If I take the company backups to an offsite location via my personal car, am I now entitled to go through all the contents and make copies for myself? After all, they are using something of mine to transmit the data.
If you are taking backups offsite, I'm quite sure you have signed non-disclosure agreements rendering your 'rights' less useful. Likewise, that would be in execution of your corporate duties which is not the case when you are reading personal email on a company computer. If your company was using your internet connection to route traffic, then barring agreements to the contrary, yes you can snoop on that traffic moving back and forth. It's *your* network.
Or more simply, if your neighbor uses your wifi connection, he has no expectation of privacy even if you granted him permission to do it.
Are they prohibited from listening to personal calls made on a company phone?
Linky
"An important exception is made for personal calls. Under federal case law, when an employer realizes the call is personal, he or she must immediately stop monitoring the call. (Watkins v. L.M. Berry & Co., 704 F.2d 577, 583 (11th Cir. 1983)) However, when employees are told not to make personal calls from specified business phones, the employee then takes the risk that calls on those phones may be monitored."
So if they tell you not to do it, they can monitor if you make calls. Decidedly a gray area me thinks which means, yes they can.
The Post Office's JOB is to transport your mail. So no they don't have a right to open and read it. Besides the Constitution and laws specifically exist to prohibit this; no such law exists for doing things with a private companies assets.
Your employer is not tasked with sending/delivering your electronic mail. Therefore anything going over their *private* network is indeed fair game for them. They do not have a right to access her yahoo mail account itself, but certainly they can intercept and read anything traveling over their network to and from that yahoo email account.
If my lunch is in my company's fridge, they can access it. If it is in my personal bag, they cannot unless they have some sort of policy allowing for blatant search and seizure; i.e. default is for personal privacy. But using the company resources opens up their right to see what you are doing.
If you access yahoo email via your personal laptop over your personal wi-fi connection (not over company network) then no they can't see it because you aren't using anything of theirs. Extreme cases of argument could involve whether the laptop was plugged in using company electricity, but obviously that's extreme as I said.